Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> What risk?  And at least we'd be trying to do it cleanly, in a manner
>> that should work for at least 99% of users.  AFAICT, Heikki's proposal
>> is "break it for everyone, and damn the torpedoes".

> I must be confused.  I thought Heikki's proposal was "fix it in 9.1,
> because incompatibilities are an expected part of major release
> upgrades, but don't break it in 9.0 and prior, because it's not
> particularly important and we don't want to change behavior or risk
> breaking things in minor releases".

No, nobody was proposing changing it before 9.1 (or at least I didn't
think anybody was).  What's under discussion is how much effort to put
into making a 9.0-to-9.1 upgrade go smoothly for people who have the
function installed.

                        regards, tom lane

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to